All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Congratulations! Your paper is accepted.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Konstantinos Kormas, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
This study provides valuable insights into the use of glass wool as an effective and practical method for concentrating viruses in wastewater. The findings demonstrate its reliability in detecting specific viruses, highlighting its potential for biosecurity monitoring and public health measures.
It is well-designed and well-supported using strong data.
The findings are very straightforward and informative supported by solid data.
Great job done by all the authors!
The authors have addressed the questions properly. The manuscript can be accepted now.
no comment
no comment
Please revise the manuscript according to the reviewers' comments.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
This study provides valuable insights into the use of glass wool as an effective and practical method for concentrating viruses in wastewater. The findings demonstrate its reliability in detecting specific viruses, highlighting its potential for biosecurity monitoring and public health measures.
It is well-designed and well-supported using strong data.
The findings are very straightforward and informative supported by solid data.
Great job done by all the authors!
Fan et al. reported the investigation of glass wool concentration for detecting swine viruses in a series of different water samples. Overall, the manuscript is well written. The presentation of experimental data is clear. The reference is in good consistency. I will recommend acceptance after a few minor problems are solved.
no comment.
The data are robust and clear. The authors should clearly define the recovery of the enrichment experiments for readers to better understand the results. The figure legend of Fig 1A did not mention the pH effect.
The figure legend are too repetitive.
in Line 226-227, the recovery rate in different water sample is very different. The authors should explain more about the underlying reason, instead of stating the data.
In the detection section, the authors claimed that the positive rate of ASFV and RPV are very low and suggest the strict actions in controling the disease in Chinese pig farms. I can see that the recovery of PEDV is low in data presented in Fig 1 and 2, Can it be also due to the relatively low recovery rate of concentration methods proposed by the authors?
Line 97 to 105 could be reformatted with the experimental material being the subject of the sentence. For example, "wipe the equipment" should be "the equipment is wiped".
The images in Figure 1 to 3 should have higher resolution. Besides, color-coding of the bars, or more distinguishable features are recommended for different experimental groups.
A paragraph with all the abbreviations and their full names should be included for a better understanding of the experimental procedures.
No comment.
No comment.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.